London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Battersea 1911

[Report on the health of the Metropolitan Borough of Battersea for the year 1911]

This page requires JavaScript

82
to give rise to contamination of the milk, and in addition to providing
a suitable cover for the counter pan containing the milk,
the vendor is required to provide a properly lighted and ventilated
safe to hold the counter pan. The milk is thus protected as far
as possible from the risk of pollution from dust, flies, &c., a matter
of the greatest importance from the public health standpoint
Milk is a highly sensitive article to contamination, and forming as it
does a pabulum for the growth of almost all kinds of pathogenic
organisms, and as it is, moreover, the staple article of food of
infants and invalids, every possible precaution should be taken by
those engaged in the milk trade to protect their milk supply.
During the year 620 visits of inspection were paid to milk
shops in the Borough. Only 20 defects, mostly unimportant, were
reported as a result of these inspections . In one case, however,
the offence was of a more serious character and from the point of
view of interest requires to be dealt with in detail.
On the 19th April, Inspector Benjamin visited in the course of
his duty, the premises of a firm of dairymen in a large way of business
in Battersea. He found stored therein fourteen full and partly
full churns of milk which was in all cases in his opinion in a dirty
condition. The milk was later seen by the Council's Chief Sanitary
Inspector and Food Inspector who confirmed the opinion of Inspector
Benjamin as to its dirty condition. The chief inspector in the
absence of the Medical Officer of Health did not feel justified in
seizing the milk under Sec. 47 of the Public Health (London) Act,
1891, but decided to take action under the Regulations. The
matter was subsequently reported to the Health Committee who
referred the case to the Borough Solicitor for proceedings to be
taken against the firm of dairymen in whose possession the milk
was found.
A summons was accordingly taken out against the Firm in
question for breach of the Regulations made under the Dairies,
Cowsheds and Milkshops Order. The particular regulation relied
on and under which the summons was taken was regulation 32,
which is as follows :—
" Every purveyor of milk or person selling milk by retail
shall at all times employ such means and adopt such precautions
as may be necessary for preserving the purity of milk and for protecting
it against infection or contamination."
Evidence was given on behalf of the Borough Council by the
Officers of the Council who inspected the milk.
The evidence of these Officers was that the milk, which was
exposed in a passage way leading from a public street thereby permitting
dust and other deleterious matters to be blown into the